AIM

MSN

Website URL

ICQ

Yahoo

Jabber

Skype

Location

Interests

What are your thoughts on GSA's announcement to consolidate all 24 GSA Schedules into a single GSA Schedule?
How will this affect industry contractors?
How will this affect contracting officers and the contracting process?
https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-announces-transformation-of-multiple-awards-schedules
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2018/11/long-overdue-reforms-coming-to-gsas-schedule-program/
https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/11/27/gsa-to-consolidate-24-multiple-award-schedules-into-one/
https://fcw.com/articles/2018/11/27/gsa-consolidates-award-schedules.aspx

So our IT guys have set up an “incubation lab”. This will allow them to play with potential tools already available commercially, and see what breaks (of their stuff or ours) and what we like. Or to consider whether we can justify building it ourselves, as opposed to buying it. Now they want to do something like this—
Release a single solicitation
Make (basically) identical awards to, say, 4 companies. With option years. and 3 stages. Potential XXX gazillion dollars for each award.
Initial period, for EVALUATION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT (XXX thousand dollars, a few months)
Follow on for FURTHER DEMONSTRATION OF FURTHER CAPABILITIES (significantly more money. More months)
And then IMPLEMENTATION (Potential XXX gazillion dollars for each award, up to 4 additional years.)
Fleshed out a bit--
Initial period, for EVALUATION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT Each company will come in and show off, and let us play with their toys for a few months. We will pay for their expenses.
Follow on for DEMONSTRATION OF FURTHER CAPABILITIES If we like Company A and B, we can exercise an option to have JUST THOSE companies come in for more playtime. Again, paid, but more money, and a longer time. BUT the same options for companies C&D are NOT exercised. But these are options, so those companies cannot object. (as opposed to a new award) After whatever time it takes, we decide we like company A more, because it is “friendlier” (note: not a defensible argument for sole source, but often what I am given)
For IMPLEMENTATION we exercise options with COMPANY A only. And company B cannot object, because those are OPTIONS.
Have you come across anything like this?
Any pros or cons leap out?
NOTE:
We do NOT have any of those special OTHER TRANSACTIONAL AUTHORITIES that some other agencies have been given. Just vanilla civilian agency FAR.
NOTE: We have looked at and rejected the USDS 8(a) Digital Service Initiative for “Select the Tech”, https://techfarhub.cio.gov/initiatives/8a/. While this may be a great thing for smaller agencies, our guys want to do the eval themselves.

Congratulations: you’ve certified as small business for federal contracting purposes. In a typical contract setting, you keep your size status for the life of the contract. But in the instance of a merger or acquisition or if a contract lasts longer than 5 years, you must recertify to maintain your size status. For multiple-award contracts, the Contracting Officer is also given a good deal of latitude in terms of whether a small business must recertify for an individual order. In a recent case, Unissant, Inc. protested the size status of a competitor who’d recently earned a task order award. Read on to learn what small businesses contractors need to know about small business status in light of this case.
Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.

When the Department of Defense (DoD) sought restrictions on bid protests, Congress made them commission a study to validate their case. That study, authored by the RAND Corporation, looks at bid protests during the 9-year period from 2008-2016. The study indicates a significant increase in the number of bid protests over that time period. That trend alone bolsters the DoD’s case. But a further look at the extensive data from RAND’s study suggests otherwise, and provides critical insights for Defense contractors.
Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.

Good afternoon,
I am researching if anyone is familiar with Blanket Task Order. Similar to a Blanket Purchase Agreement except this one is for construction (repair of pipes, gas lines, water lines, etc.) that are less than SAP ($150K) and requires a quick response from contractor awarded the Blanket Task Order.
I have never heard of this procedure before.
Thank you for your assistance.

Good Afternoon, We are five months away from the end of the final period of performance of a task order issued under FAR Subpart 8.4 and the requesting activity requested that we extend the services for an additional six months while the new procurement is completed (solicitation should be posted in a few weeks). The solicitation this task order was awarded against did not contain clause 52.217-8, however, it was bilaterally added to the task order during the first period of performance. I have argued that extending the services for an additional six months constitutes a sole source procurement and requires a J&A in accordance with FAR Section 8.405-6 and FAR Subpart 6.3 (for open market items) as the clause was not included in the solicitation and considered as a part of the offers or resultant award. I am getting push back from management that a J&A is not necessary and we have the right to extend the services without synopsizing because the clause was bilaterally included in the task order, but I disagree. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

In light of a recent protest (WIFCON link http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4114813.pdf, docket B-411481.3 dated 6 January 2016) regarding a task order issued off a Federal Supply Schedule, I've heard chatter from legal advisors that the clause at FAR 52.216-22 doesn't set the effective date of the IDIQ. Consequently, they argue that clause cannot be a mechanism by which a task order featuring option years can be performed for years beyond the end of the ordering period. This interpretation seems entirely contradictory to the specific language featured in FAR 52.216-22.
The clause in the IDIQ in question cuts paragraph (d) short, omitting the date fill-in.
GSA's ordering guide places the following restriction on task orders which use options (emphasis supplied by the GAO)
Interestingly, GSA has revised their ordering guides within the last two weeks to put an end to the issue this portion of the protest encountered: https://interact.gsa.gov/document/important-update-new-mas-refresh-mass-modification-changes-february-2016-streamline
Researching WIFCon, I've found relevant discussions.
Here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1665-task-orders-that-extend-beyond-base-contract-pop/#comment-14003
Vern's invaluable blog post at http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/644-those-pesky-idiq-contracts-again/ provided some excellent reading, but nothing that corresponds with what I am hearing from legal counsel.
Another discussion seems to predate the fateful action which triggered the protest in question: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1768-gsa-to-with-options-beyond-k-period/
Based on the buzzings, it seems as though legal counsel is applying the restrictions imposed by GSA onto DOD contracting officers. Legal counsel has argued that:
1. The effective period may end prior to the ordering period;
2. The date of FAR 52.216-22(d) is NOT relevant to the IDIQ's effective period;
3. The contract's effective date is the same as the IDIQ's ordering period
4. The date if FAR 52.216-22(d) is only relevant to the performance period for delivery under a Task Order and thus cannot be construed to include options under that performance;
5. Inclusion of the date in FAR 52.216-22(d) would not have changed GAO's analysis of the protest in question; and
6. Task orders are not stand alone contracts and once an IDIQ has expired (rendering the contract "no longer effective), the delivery under a Task Order is irrelevant.
Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22. In fact, I am lead to expect this "ruling" by the various legal offices will impact DOD contracts significantly, requiring contracting officers to come up with a variety of complex "work-arounds". Is there something I never learned or never understood with regards how FAR 52.216-22 works?
EDIT: Made a clarification.

I have an IDIQ contract to supply contract personnel to perform Quality Assurance Testing. The IDIQ is a 5 year contract with an 8a firm and the 5 years will end Sept 2016. I currently have a task order in place that was issued for 2 years and ends Sept 2013. I simply need to issue another task order (nearly identical to the first) and wish to do it for the remaining 3 years of the IDIQ contract. Here's the catch...the PM has informed me we do not have sufficient funds for the entire 3 years, but do have enough for one year. According to the Blogs I've read along with FAR 702 there really are no restrictions to writing a task order with options. I would like the task order to have a base year to cover FY14, one option for an additional 12 months to cover FY15, and one more option to cover FY16 bringing me to the end of the IDIQ contract. Keep in mind, the task order will end on the last day of the IDIQ contract. Can someone provide me with some justification or a section in the FAR I can point to for our contracting department? Thanks in advance.

Scenario: A multiple award IDIQ contract for R&D servcies was awarded sometime near the end of FY'09. The vehicle consisted of 37 base contracts with 37 different contractors. All base contracts were funded with the established minimum ordering amount. I have recently taken over this contract and the time has come to exercise an option period on all of the contracts. To date there are 15 to 20 contractors that have not been awarded task orders. My reasoning tells me that upon exercising the option on these base contracts, I should be required to obligate funds in an amount equal to the minimum ordering amount and ensure that those funds remain present throughout all periods of performance until that time when a task order is awarded and the minimum ordering amount has been satisfied. I don't think this has taken place to date. I believe the contracts were modified to exercise the options, but the amount required to satisfy the minimum ordering amount was never carried through to the new period of performance. What would be the effect had the funds that were obligated upon award been no-year funds? Also, the specific language that was used in the contract seems to suggest that the minimum ordering amount is payable only at the end of the contract period, inclusive of options. Does that make a difference as regards the amount that should have been funded on the contract at time of award? The exact language from the contract follows: Fulfilling Minimum Ordering Requirements The Government has no obligation to issue task orders to any contractor beyond the minimum amount specified above. For each successful contractor, there will be a one time "minimum guarantee award amount" during the life of the contract, which includes all option years, if exercised. This amount can only be claimed at the end of the contract period if the contractor takes advantage of fair opportunity by proposing on at least one Task Order, within the Technical Areas for which the Contractor received award, offered to the contractor during the years for which the contractor is eligible.